Sequester parochialism

The Navy delayed the deployment of a carrier battle group to the Middle East this year due to budget sequestration, even as Congress forced it to undertake $4.3 billion worth of repairs of seven cruisers and two amphibious warships that the Navy says it doesn't want or need.

But congressional wants and needs are what drives defense spending, which is why many members of Congress want to exempt the Department of Defense from the across-the-board sequestration cuts resulting from their own lack of leadership.

The first two of the seven cruisers are based in Norfolk, Va., and Mayport, Fla. Members of Congress aren't worried about the ships' roles in naval readiness; they are worried about the impact of the presence or absence of those two ships, and their crews, on the economies of the port cities.

Everyone plays the game. As reported by The Associated Press, five giant C-5A cargo planes remain on active status at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in Texas, even though there is no money to fly them and the Air Force wants to scrap them. Crews actually tow the planes around the tarmac to prevent their tires from rotting in place.

They're just a few examples. They illustrate that it's not impossible to cut defense spending without affecting readiness; just that it's politically impractical.

We welcome user discussion on our site, under the following guidelines:

To comment you must first create a profile and sign-in with a verified DISQUS account or social network ID. Sign up here.

Comments in violation of the rules will be denied, and repeat violators will be banned. Please help police the community by flagging offensive comments for our moderators to review. By posting a comment, you agree to our full terms and conditions. Click here to read terms and conditions.